TheLittleSongbird Moderately enjoyed the first 'Taken', while finding a fair share of faults, finding it overall an above average film that could have done more with promising potential. Was underwhelmed by 'Taken 2', which had good things but was essentially a very tired and even more ridiculous rehash with lazy stereotypes and a lack of suspense.Was worried that 'Taken 3' would be a sequel too far and that it wasn't needed, even if it still had enough to make it semi-watchable. Seeing it, 'Taken 3' not only was not necessary, even if not quite among the worst sequels ever (definitely to me one of the most pointless), and indicative of that it was a good thing it was the last 'Taken' film (from my underwhelming) but it also has very little to recommend it. It makes all the mistakes pretty much of 'Taken 2' and amplifies them and makes more on the way. The only halfway decent thing about 'Taken 3' is Liam Neeson, who at least tries and is charismatic and brooding enough. Even though one can tell still that even he knew that the film was not good and shouldn't have been made. The rest of the cast are all indifferent and are not engaging at all. They are saddled with characters that don't even have enough to them to be half-formed and are again lazy stereotypes. Direction is complete and utter chaos, and one misses the rawness and slickness of the previous two films visually. 'Taken 3' looks as though it was made on the cheap, especially with some of the worst editing seen in recent memory, editing that gave me a headache which is not good for my epilepsy. The script is filled to the brim with cheese, ham and confusion.Even the action is a failure, it is chaotically edited and photographed, gratuitously violent, unexciting and go well overboard on the ridiculousness. The pace is generally far too rushed, especially in the latter stages which affects the coherence of the story. Speaking of the story, that was one of the film's biggest issues, it may not be as much of a rehash but it is still even more fatigued than 'Taken 2' (which was as tired as it comes), even more far-fetched, even less suspenseful and thrilling and makes the further mistake of being incoherent.On the whole, very poor and that it was the last of the series was something of a relief. 2/10 Bethany Cox

juneebuggy This was pretty good, more of what you'd expect from former covert operative Bryan Mills. This franchise is a guilty pleasure though and still better than a lot of other action movies out there with car chases (and wrecks), fist fights, shootouts and lots of shots of Liam Neeson looking glum as he tracks down the criminals who framed him for murder while evading the FBI, the CIA and the police....basically Taken 3 is the Fugitive.Neeson can still give us some fantastic hand to hand fight scenes (even if he can't run anymore) I do hope this is the last one in the series though, it is time to retire this "particular set of skills," Some weird underwear fight scene at the end... reminding me heavily of a naked Viggo Mortensen in that (kinda awesome) Russian bathhouse scene 'Eastern Promises.' Do all Russian gangsters fight to the death semi dressed? There is also 'someone' who you all-along know is not who they appear to be but its still a decent enough twist once its figured out. (i.e. the hired gun)

FountainPen The movie drags in certain parts, and many of the violent scenes are unrealistic, but it is an entertaining flick overall, so I awarded 7. I find Forest Whitaker to be VERY hard to take, with his weird wandering eye! Simply cannot get used to this; it is a major distraction to every part he plays. He is the actor chosen, unhappily, to portray Idi Amin in the movie bio. Very distracting! Liam Neeson was his usual self, though looking a bit raggy and haggard. There were some lapses in the actions of the character he plays in this film, but what the heck! It's Hollywood! Go with the flow and relax!

jimpartridge OK, so I've read many of the reviews of this movie and wanted to put my view forward, as I feel it has taken (no pun intended) something of a bashing ! Basically, I found it to be a good, enjoyable action movie – so there were no Albanians, and no-one was taken – so what ??? Why are people so hung up on these points ? The return of most of the original characters was a big plus, a familiarity, and a new plot which was plausible, lots of action and Neeson doing what he does best, with the involvement and interaction of his special group. As for a poor sequel – go back through 50 years of the industry – what sequels are even as good as the original – Jaws, Star Wars, Rocky, First Blood, Die Hard to name but a few. Yet I still think we are left with an entertaining action movie, and if you are prepared to sit back and enjoy the fantasy, as all movies are, rather than sit there with a pen and paper trying to find any holes and irregularities, that you could find with any movie, then this is what it is all about. Maybe not a typical Taken movie in the same sense that the first 2 were, but none-the-less, entertainment, action, and for me, it hit the right note.